Hi,
Perhaps I missed some previous discussion about this, but I can't quite
understand why a decision whether an abstract class is "light" or
"heavy" and consequently doesn't implement IdentityObject or does
implement, has to be implicit. Couldn't it be explicit like it is for
concrete classes? Couldn't the language allow saying:
public abstract inline class SuperInline {
// no instance fields allowed, no constructors allowed
}
vs.:
public abstract class SuperIdentity {
// everything allowed (but nothing required), implicitly implements
IdentityObject
}
A concrete or abstract inline class could only extend abstract inline class.
A concrete or abstract non-inline class could only extend concrete or
abstract non-inline class.
With such explicitness about the intent (inline vs. non-inline) there
would be less unintentional surprises.
What do you think?
Regards, Peter
On 8/18/20 1:44 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
There's an interesting interaction between IdentityObject and abstract
superclasses of inline classes that might be worth leaning into.
---
The "status quo" (inasmuch as one exists):
An inline class can extend a class if it, and all of its supers, 1) are abstract, 2) declare no instance fields, and 3) have
"empty" <init> methods. These properties represent a new kind of abstract class—call it a "light"
abstract class. Changing a "light" abstract class to be "heavy" is a binary incompatible change.
Separately, we have the IdentityObject interface, which is implicitly attached
to all non-inline concrete classes. An abstract class might also be able to
implement IdentityObject explicitly, and doing so would also disqualify it from
being an inline class super.
A struggle in this story is getting programmers to care about whether their classes are
"heavy" or "light", since even though it's an important property, it's easy to
overlook (there's no syntax for it, and in many cases, there are no immediate effects).
---
Alternative story:
An inline class must not extend IdentityObject through any of its superclasses.
(That's it.)
A non-inline class implicitly implements IdentityObject if it 1) is concrete, 2)
declares an instance field, or 3) has a non-empty <init> method. Abstract
classes can also explicitly implement IdentityObject.
Changing a class so that it implements IdentityObject is a binary incompatible
change.
Now we have a highly-visible concept (IdentityObject) that programmers should
generally be aware of anyway, and they should readily understand a difference
between abstract classes that implement IdentityObject and those that don't.
---
I think I like the alternative story. It feels simpler.
One reason to avoid it is if we think there's potentially value in a "light"
abstract class concept that is independent of IdentityObject. For example, maybe some
other feature could build on the idea of a superclass that requires no initialization,
without tying that to the topic of object identity. I'm having trouble envisioning a use
case, though. Another reason to avoid it is if we want IdentityObject to be limited to
concrete classes—no explicit implementing it allowed.
If the alternative story is the one we want, it implies that the "empty <init>"
JVM feature should be part of Inline Classes, not a separate thing we deliver earlier—because
it's directly tied to IdentityObject.
